Manic MCP Server

Manic authoring guide

manic_authoring_guide

Fetch the authoritative Manic DSL authoring guide to learn the precise verbs, blocks, and rules required for writing .manic animation source files.

Instructions

Fetches the complete, current Manic language authoring guide (the same system prompt Manic's own AI uses). Call this ONCE before writing any .manic source and follow it exactly — Manic is a precise DSL and the guide is the source of truth for its verbs, blocks, and rules. No authentication needed.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "manic_authoring_guide"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 18, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fully discloses essential behavior: the tool has zero parameters, requires no authentication, returns a complete guide, and is safe to call repeatedly despite being designed for one-time use. No behavioral surprises.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, zero waste. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose: what it does, how to use it, and behavioral note (no auth). Front-loaded with the verb and resource.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete. It fully explains the tool's purpose, usage pattern, and behavior. There are no missing details — the agent can use this description to correctly select and invoke the tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% with zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-level detail because there are none, but it clarifies the nature of the returned content (complete guide, source of truth), which serves as context for what the tool provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('Fetches the complete, current Manic language authoring guide'), identifies the exact resource (the system prompt Manic's own AI uses), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a one-time reference tool, unlike manic_check, manic_render, etc.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit guidance: call ONCE before writing any .manic source, follow it exactly, and explains why (Manic is a precise DSL and the guide is the source of truth). This implicitly advises against calling it repeatedly or relying on alternatives for authoring rules.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server